Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday October 31, 2006 @02:46PM
from the sanctions-doing-their-job dept.

EmperorKagato writes, "North Korea has agreed to rejoin the Six Party Talks on its nuclear weapons program. The sanctions placed against North Korea on October 9, 2006 will remain in place; however, financial sanctions will be addressed by the group of the six nations: North Korea, China, Japan, United States, Russia, and South Korea."

I really don't understand the intricacies of international diplomacy, but from what I gather (as well as what has been presented) China has almost complete control over North Korea's wellbeing in every respect. Are these six-way talks really just another way of saying China + North Korea versus Japan, USA, South Korea, and Russia?

i don't think so. i think that china is more motivated to play nice with the rest of the world. they wont just follow the lead of the other nations, but i think having them involved certainly raises the chances of success in these talks.

Yep. China's got business reasons to interact with other nations. North Korea is pretty much isolated (mostly by choice). As long as Tony Soprano^W^WKim Jong Il can bring in enough through the black market to keep himself and his lieutenants happy, they have nothing to lose by pissing off the rest of the world.

that's what i'm afraid of. i think they'll get this worked out the day after the peace process is succesful in the middle east -- which is highly rumored to coincide with the release of duke nukem forever.

Actually the problem is that we can't really offer or threaten anything, which is why they want to only negotiate with us. The only thing we can offer is aid that we probably wouldn't give anymore, and we can't really threaten anything less than total annihilation. China can make all sorts of economic modifications relative to North Korea though, and that could actually matter to them.

They can easily lie to us in direct talks (so can we, for that matter), but they can't really lie while in front of China. China wields far too much power over NK. That's why they hate the idea of the six-party talks; When all the neighbors are included, there won't be a way to weasel out. Russia and China are content to move quite slowly however, as NK's annoyance of the US and Japan isn't seen as a negative. As an analogy, how much do you care if your neighbor's uncontrollable dog is threatening someo

It amazes me to see China dumping so much money into North Korea so that proxy militants can build bombs in Iran. The end result will speed the planet to the Hydrogen Dollar, Robotic Farms, Robotic Factories, and Cheaper Internet Connections. China should not fear nationalistic aggreassors, but the Cell Phone, a pair of Levis, and the MG Model F.

China is the closest thing to a friend North Korea has but they don't seem to have a lot of practical influence. China doesn't want to shut off power, food, or whatnot because then they'd have a failed state and a refugee problem on their border.North Korea's usual demand has been bilateral talks, just NK and the US. If there's a rational reason, something you should never take for granted with those people, the reason would be that they'd feel more pressure if all the neighbors were on one side of the tabl

That's not what I've been hearing at all. The US wants deep sanctions, and Japan has already implemented deep sanctions. The Chinese want sanctions, but also want North Korea to remain stable. Sanctions that cut too deep could cause instability within the North Korean government, and China would rather have a stable dictatorship with nuclear weapons on its border than an unstable failed state with nuclear weapons there. Obviously, the South Koreans are trying to balance the need to look strong with the

China would rather have a stable dictatorship with nuclear weapons on its border than an unstable failed state with nuclear weapons there.

From what I have heard, the worst-case scenario (from the Chinese point of view) is not a failed North Korea (although the idea of having millions of Koreans pouring into China isn't a fun one for the Chinese). In fact, the last thing the Chinese want is North Korea turning into a stable democracy, united with South Korea, while continuing host 50,000 US Troops. Sort

If you starve them to the point that even the soldiers begin feeling the effects, they'll eventually turn on their own government and topple it in order to get food. Especially if we bombard them with propaganda to counter the inevitable "those westerners are evil and they're the ones starving you!" propaganda.

Like I said, not pretty, and not nice, but it could work. I don't think anyone is willing to go that far though.

But what are China's long term plans for North Korea? They cannot keep this regime teetering on the brink forever. It seems like they have tried to prod Kim Jong Il into some Deng Xiaoping-esque reforms with special economic zones and whatnot, but then without warning the North Koreans will either scrap the program altogether or severely reduce it. How can China bring about a gradual change to a more sustainable North Korea? Is it even possible?

That's a hell of a question. Kim is only 65, and he's got years left in him. So as far as I can tell, the Chinese are content to leave him there until he dies and not try to come up with a strategy for an event ten years or more off. In all likelihood he's got an equally egomaniacal successor in the wings.Presumably they have an emergency plan should he die sooner (or perhaps if they find he should need to die sooner), but they're content with the status quo. Kim pisses off the US but costs China very lit

The sanctions placed against North Korea on October 9, 2006 will remain in place...

That's just super. Because, Kim Jong Il's about to crack. That's what everyone's saying. And that's what they've been saying for the past fifteen years--any minute now. Who's really hurting in the meantime? The people.

Economic sanctions aren't going to hurt him, they're just going to make the poor poorer. Kim Jong Il keeps his Generals and powerful friends happy with presents and they, in turn, keep him in power despite the stupid things he's doing and preaching. Do you hope to restrict trade so far that he can't give the top dogs presents and they take him out with a coup? Good luck.

So what effect will our sanctions have?

Oh, they'll destabilize a nation that has nuclear weapons. Great idea.

It'll give people and nations an example of us starving another nation. Another great idea.

I'm not saying the sanctions are a bad idea, I'm just saying that there's gotta be a better way to pressure this guy--and I don't mean militarily. How about we increase worthless goods like blankets & food & water and only keep out things like cognac & caviar? How about we freely distribute unbiased publications of the history of Asia and the Korean peninsula? Come on, use your imagination here, you're a freaking government!

Sanctions only seem to work if the people in charge of the target country give a damn about the citizenry or economy. If all they care about is being in control, rather than being in charge of a nation that actually has some prestige, they'll just siphon off the country's own supplies to make up the difference.

And then there's the rhetorical win: "See, that country is trying to prevent you from having food and shelter! Aren't they evil!"

I think the ultimate goal with sanctions is to make the North Korean people suffer now so that they will take control of their government through revolution. If their leadership is clearly not taking care of them the North Korean people should get pissed off.

Although the approach makes logical sense it seems as though revolution isn't really possible these days especially in a place like NK. Sanctions end up only harming the people you are ultimately trying to push to help themselves. Of course sanctions

I totally agree, as I said, revolution in NK is not possible. The problem is that you have to retaliate in some form otherwise NK will spin even further out of control. So far the only solution I think that is even remotely sustainable is for China to annex NK but that brings a whole host of problems too. I'm not sure how that would pressure South Korea either.

Something needs to be done. Targeted sanctions could work but are nearly impossible to enforce.

Have they tried offering to let him direct a live action Daffy Duck feature length movie? From everything I have heard, this guy just want's to be an American mover and shaker. One movie deal, and we just might have him distracted for a couple of years.

It depends on the sanctions. A simple economic blockade is collective punishment. It's applied on the theory that the people, under pressure, will rebel against the rulers causing the sanctions, who will be weaker, because they won't be as rich, well-supplied, or motivated to keep their hold on a broken country.It's a stupid theory, like all collective punishment, especially one that conflicts with patriotism, especially under totalitarian regimes which keep the people misinformed about why the economics ar

Also the fact that Saddam for example came into power within his lifetime, while Kim is a second generation nutjob and most of the population are drinking the koolaid at this stage.Sanctions in such a case probably wouldn't work against NK as many believe already that NK is the best country in the world and it is only the Evil third world country the USA run by an evil dictator that is stopping the rest of the world from giving NK food.

with that mindset it is doubtful they would back down because of sanctio

Of course, the problem is that 'sanctions' as a concept, are a POLITICIAN'S response to a DIPLOMATIC issue.If the government you're dealing with is vulnerable to sanctions, i.e. they give a shit about their populace like France, Germany, Japan, etc. they are PROBABLY already amenable to negotiation and diplomacy. Sanctions just become the 'biggest hammer in the toolbox' of diplomacy between what I'd call 'reasonable' nation/states.

But if you have rogue states, dictatorships, or thugocracies (as you state)

You are correct, sanctions do not work, they never do. As far as NKorea goes, diplomacy does not work either, the Clinton admin tried it and it didn't work. What does that leave us? I'm afraid that military may be the only option left in NK. Unfortunately, it seems as if they are begging for it.

On the contrary, the military campaign was incredibly successful, with almost all of North Korea in the hands of UN forces a mere two months after it seemed that Pusan might become an Alamo. Then ChiCom troops began to pour over the border. The UN mandate for the war did not cover dealing with China, and Truman and Eisenhower had no desire to turn it into a pan-Asia war, possibly involving the Soviets more directly, and leading to World War III less than a decade after the last great war had been conclude

That is true, I was being a little unfair to the situation but the war never ended and the conflict was never resolved. The military solution has not worked thus far. The world has changed quite a bit in that time so it might be more successful now.

If you had to worship a dwarf with a bad hairdo who uses human beings as pixels in his giant-screen TV set as a required state religion, you might be wishing for the ICBMs to deliver you from this hellhole too.

Depends on your definition of "worse."If you believe that a nuclear North Korea really would use a weapon against a populated area (either in the U.S., or South Korea, or Japan), and that the odds of them doing this only increase with time until it becomes a near certainty, and you also believe that it is the duty of governments to protect the lives of their own citizens first, and enemy states' citizens second, then there is an argument for a first strike against North Korea.

No, sanctions against Saddam didn't work because Saddam didn't care about his populace. The only significant time sanctions worked, South Africa, was against a nation whose "priveleged" segment(the segment that the government "likes"--in the case of Iraq and NK it's the governmental party, in the case of South Africa it was the 10% minority of whites) was large enough that the sanctions affected them.

Economic sanctions cut Idi Amin's ability to buy the loyalty of Uganda's armed forces. He was out of power shortly thereafter.

I hope someone is making realistic calculations about how many people Mr. Kim needs to keep sweet, how much hard currency that requires, and how much hard currency would come in with trade shut off and ships getting searched for drugs, counterfeit money, and exported weapons.

Bless your heart for sharing some truth in a thoughtful manner.The idea that our leaders can just give the Big Fungoo to any country that's not behaving the way we like is a demonstrably stupid one, which George Bush has turned into a specialty. But that's just how he sees the world: It's US and THEM. And if you're not US, well, then you exist only at our pleasure. It's a surefire recipe to turn us into the Cylons.

I pray that at the very least, a week from now he's have a little oversight for a change.

There are very few items that are only available from the USA, and foodstuffs are not among them. Cuba can buy whatever it wants from just about every other country on earth.

The reason that they're an economic basket case is that now that the Russians aren't buying sugar from them at artificially high prices, the consequences of punishing private enterprise are making themselves felt.

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that

Disarmament solves nothing. It is impossible to put the genie of nuclear weapons back in the bottle, and even assuming we managed to officially "disarm" every nation of nukes, it is still impossible to be certain no "rogue state" is secretly working on one... and what a coup that would be! Iran with the only nuke program in the world!

There is no going back. There is only going forward. Nukes are not going away despite the elaborate fantasies of a few.

what a coup that would be! Iran with the only nuke program in the world!

How's that a problem? Iran hasn't attacked another country in over one hundred years. Sounds like a defensive policy to me. Oh, that's right, they are a different religion from you and therefore are eeeeevil.

Well, first off, of the nations that currently possess nukes, most of them wouldn't attack the US for a variety of reasons, most of them economic (Russia, China, UK, France, India, probably Pakistan). The rest don't have the capability to deliver the payload directly to US soil (Pakistan (I think) and NK).This leaves two options: concealed or otherwise disguised weapons (eg, the oft-cited cargo-container-bomb), or "rogue states". And tell me, how, exactly, does the US building more nukes protect it from e

What you don't realize is nuclear weapons, over time, loss their ability to sustain critical mass. That's why we have some many nuclear simulations (previously done with below ground testing) which verify specific categories of different ages can still do their thing. Their goal is to maintain viable weapons (repair or replace) and destroy the old weapons which will no longer be effective. In the long run, the US winds up with fewer, more reliable weapons.The US has a long history of owning nukes and a s

Which part about "smaller, more reliable arsenal" in the article you cite makes you think we're making even more powerful nukes? I know this is slashdot, but could you at least read the fine articles you quote yourself?

You obviously just made it into THE country (U.S.A.) recently (illegally, no doubt). By having more powerful nukes, we can effectively destroy any country (or planet) that decides to use, threatens to use, or test a significantly weaker nuke.

Thousands of dead people and five armed babies are the perfect reason to not have nukes.

North Korea returns to the table, we (Team America) make even more powerful nukes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic [washingtonpost.com] le/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html Why do we need even more powerful weapons that we never want to use? How is doing this going to encourage any other country to disarm?

I'm no fan of nuclear weapons, but I saw nothing in the article you linked that said the administration was planning to build more powerful nukes. Rather, as I read it, they were planning eventually to repla

There you go trying to confuse the disarmament crowd with actual facts! Shame on you!

Seriously though, anyone who thinks that EVERYONE would agree to disarm needs to send me some of what they are smoking. As another poster put it, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back.

The US is the only nation to have ever used a nuke on another. Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?

This whole (queue scare quotes...) "WMD" thing is just silly. Sovereign nations should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their own borders w/o the meddling of other nations. Sure, it may be an eventual problem for other nations, but any nation should realize that the retaliation they would incur should they use those weapons in this modern time would

The problem with NK is that they sell their tech to anybody who's willing to pay. That would include terrorists. And it's kind of hard to retaliate against them, as we're finding out. So it seems a wise idea to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries. I believe if you looked for "non-proliferation treaty" you might find that pretty much everybody is trying to do exactly that.

Next up - China. They're not exactly "pursuing" nuke tech - they have it for quite some time. They just have less than we do. I'm sure you meant India & *Pakistan*. We're not happy about either, but neither is run by somebody who's completely insane. As a result, their economy is healthy enough that we simply can't pressure them. Hence, less efforts. (Plus, we need Pakistan for the War On Terror - of course we're making deals when it's in our best interests. Or at least, when we think so)

Let's go to the "who would trust us with nukes" bs. The rest of the world pretty much does, because we've so far shown a remarkable constraint when using them. Yes, we used them at the end of WW2 - to spare a couple of hundred thousand lives a traditional invasion would've cost. Was it a nice thing to do? No, but war is never nice. We haven't done so since then, and up until a few years ago we had fairly sane leaders. That, I think, makes the US a bit more trustworthy than NK. If this was really a US problem only, why do you think China and Russia are in the negotiations?

Ignore the BS of sparing a couple hundred thousand lives at the expense of a couple hundred thousand lives argument and stick with the reality that the world including the U.S. did not know the horror dropping such a weapon would cause and how long it's effects would linger. Yes, you can argue they knew a little about radiation but at the time radiation poisoning will still a new condition and they didn't know much about it. Now they know it will affect the children and their children's children.

How many natives of this continent has the US government killed? How about imported slaves?

If you look back far enough into any nations history, I can almost promise you that one group of people was beating the piss out of another group of people. The point of looking into the past isn't to remove all moral authority from everyone. I am Jesus, the fucking Norwegians who are easily one of the most peaceful people in this world sent Viking raiders against England, that doesn't make Norwegians blood thirsty savages. The Germans committed horrible acts of genocide a scant 65 years ago, and they too qualify as one of the most peaceful nations on this world. Everyone has done something "bad", get over it.

The point is that you can try and prevent such horrible mistakes from happening again. Yes, the US used to import slaves and slaughter its natives. The US now actively seeks to shut down the remaining slave trade in this world and was one of the many nations instrumental in helping the racist South African out of power. That is a *good* thing. If anything, the US with its sullied past on racial equality was a shinning example of how you can reverse the tied in a relativity short period of time.

This whole historical relativism crap is the bane of peace in this world. Every group in the world points to some historical injustice that explains why it is okay for them to commit atrocities they now seek to commit. The Israelis and Palestinians will probably both cease to exist as nations with their fingers still securely wrapped around each other's throats, all the while screaming that the other one started it.

Fuck the past.

I'll happily trust Germans to broker peace deals and safe guard the peace even though they were once raced armies around the world dishing out genocide. I'll merrily trust that a Japanese navy has only peaceful intentions, despite the fact that Japanese ships used to once terrorized the entire pacific. I will also happily trust the Americans to not use their pile of nukes as they did throughout the entire Cold War, even though they once nuked another nation at the height of a genocidal war over 60 years ago. North Korea on the other hand I do not trust with a fucking pocket knife, much less a nuke. I don't have a lack of trust in North Korea because of some ancient wrong they did, but because RIGHT NOW, they are a brutal totalitarian dictatorship that visits unimaginable suffering upon its own people. This is a nation that tests fucking chemical weapons on its own people. This is a nation that steals food from its own starving populace to maintain a massive military. This is nation that, regardless of past deeds or misdeeds, is completely unworthy of our trust RIGHT NOW.

So cram all your historical finger pointing. The simple fact of the matter is that RIGHT NOW, North Korea is roughly the last nation in the world that should be playing with nukes, and it is a damn fine thing that the rest of the world is trying to keep them from doing so.

"Who the hell can actually have any trust in us when it comes to nuclear weapons?"

Perhaps because only two nuclear weapons have ever been used at a time of war and none have been used since then? Despite the Cold War and Russia threatening to park nuclear weapons off our souther coast, we managed to keep the finger off the trigger and wiping the Soviet Union off the face of the map. Imagine that. Perhaps the U.S.,of all countries, is in the best position to make that choice BECAUSE we have made the decis

That said, leaders who fold under international pressure against nukes (like, Kadafi, for example) are lame.

Why? Because they are uncool? Let's see which nation is the most successful in the next 50 years; Libya, North Korea, or Iran. I know who my money is on. Kadafi did the smart thing, dropping his program in return for every other nation dropping whatever international beef it had with Libya. It's good for the people, and its good for stability in the government. Having nukes or a nuke program sim

As much as I'd like to see KJI push up the daisies, I'm afraid the options of all major players are limited.

Economic sanctions are the only real cards left worth playing, and they're still dicey. Let's assume they actually work. You have a number of scenarios to deal with afterward:

Military response from NK. Not likely, but it would devastate the South if it did happen. Seoul could cease to exist. Japan would probably be fired upon as well. And the global economy might not be able to endure the str

It's a much better idea to get NK involved, integrated and dependant on trade with the world. Try to build up a wealthy middle class in the country, they're the ones who have their sights set on political power. America can dump it's unwanted excess agricultural capacity there, subsidise businesses who are able to get in to do business.

Sure, your predecessor managed to get extraordinary access to North Korea's nuclear facilities, even installing video cameras in some.

Uh, yeah, which they promptly shut down as soon as we upheld our part. Fact is, the former administration got screwed by NK who did not uphold any of our agreements. Now this is not the fault of the previous admin, they get an A for effort, but it would be a completely boneheaded move if our current admin were to trust NK again.

Actually, the current administration has a lot to do with the recent escalation:

On Sept. 19, 2005, North Korea signed a widely heralded denuclearization agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang pledged to "abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs." In return, Washington agreed that the United States and North Korea would "respect each other's sovereignty, exist peacefully together and take steps to normalize their relations."

Hmmmm..... isn't the primary blame with the country which brands itself by being guilty of counterfeiting, money laundering and trafficking in weapons of mass destruction? Rather than the parties that properly identify that country?

I remember the US when Jimma was President. He gave us the best of both worlds: high unemployment, and high inflation. He'd decided the decline of the US was inevitable, and ruled accordingly. And when we, the citizens of the US, objected, he got on TV and told us all this was our fault, and we'd better just get used to it.No wonder Reagan won in a landslide.

Since leaving offive, Jimma's showed himself to be a typical small-town Southern politician: small-minded, and with a mean streak a mile wide.

Good God, that started out as a nice troll but you just went to far. A good troll has to be believable. The first paragraph was excellent, a few untruths and distortions, but nothing that is completely unbelievable. The next line should have been the last, though. The next to the last line is where you start to lose it. A mean streak? Come on, his worst critics would never say that. Then in the last line you go so far over the top that one almost has to conclude that you really feel exactly the opposite abo

"Then regressive taxes against the poor to make up for the inability to tax the rich adequately."

In the current tax plan, the rich (as a group) pay the lion's share of taxes. Individually, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income (and also, of course, a higher amount of real dollars. The rich are already taxed quite adequately.

"That is the result if the rich are made to pay less tax than the poor."

That is an imaginary situation that has nothing to do with anything. There's not even a propos

Well, I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and suggest that the blame lies not with either the current or the previous US administrations, but with the Stalinist thugs who are starving their people to death while they spend billions on developing nukes.

"How didya open up china and cause them to at least restrain their worst crazy ideas?"

Among their worst crazy ideas are the ongoing occupation of Tibet, and the quite open "We will do it just because we want to. Muahahah!" threat to cross yet another international boundary and trash Taiwan. Has either of these crazy ideas been restrained?

No, no, no. They can't afford a western style table, but they have their own solution. Kim just has a couple flunkies get down on all fours, then they lay a few more flunkies across the first two. Sure it's a little uneven but considering how little the average North Korean has to eat, most of them are thin and flat enough to make a lovely table.

Or, for those of us who prefer some sanity, there's the other description: When Clinton was in power, negotiations successfully stopped Korea's plutonium refinement process, and no weapons were produced. Bush, on the other hand, abandoned that agreement, resulting in Korea restarting their plutonium refinement program, producing several nuclear weapons, and testing one of them successfully.